Hi Elizabeth,
I came across some info that might be of potential interest to the attorney you’re working with to find taxpayer plaintiffs, Jason Bezis, if he’s interested in other lawsuits against municipalities to try to limit taxation. Specifically a web page (https://californiaglobe.com/fr/local-governments-under-the-california-constitution/) listing the provisions of California Proposition 2, adopted in 1970. According to the site, one of these provisions is as follows:
Section 11 provides that the Legislature may not delegate to a private person or body power to make, control, appropriate, supervise, or interfere with county or municipal corporation improvements, money, or property, or to levy taxes or assessments, or perform municipal functions.
It occurred to me that so-called “benefit districts” (also apparently referred to as “place management organizations” among other names – see attached screenshot) might be in violation of this law, as quasi-government entities that arguably do perform municipal functions, and control assessments collected at their behest by local governments.
San Francisco has 17 of these districts, listed at Community Benefit Districts | SF.gov [only 16 appear on the accompanying map, presumably because one, the “Tourism Improvement District” (http://www.sftid.com/), covers two zones which overlap with other benefit districts]. There’s also a separate “Green Benefits District” under the aegis of the Department of Public Works: Green Benefit Districts | Public Works. Maybe others, I don’t know – they don’t tend to get a lot of publicity.
My understanding of the way these entities typically operate is that a certain percentage of taxpayers in an area must sign a petition to form one. Once a certain threshold is met, the creation of the district is put to a vote of those in the area to be assessed (businesses and/or residents). Votes are weighted, and assessments levied, in proportion to the amount of taxes a resident or business would be required to pay. Once established, these districts levy extra assessments on ALL the taxpayers eligible to vote in their formation, including those who voted against a district being established, with funds being used for the purpose of providing extra services in the area like street cleaning and marketing.
A 2023 analysis of SF’s districts online at https://www.sf.gov/file/2022-san-francisco-property-business-improvement-district-pbid-program-impact-analysis gives a brief history and description of such entities on page 10 (see attached screenshot). According to this history, they were first authorized in California by a piece of legislation called the Parking and Business Improvement District Law of 1989. I’m wondering whether that statute might be in violation of the 1970 measure adopted by state voters, on the grounds that the legislature improperly delegated prohibited powers to private bodies as described above.
According to ChatGPT, "As of 2024, there are over 70 Tourism Business Improvement Districts (TBIDs) in the state [here the AI references fhwa.dot.gov http://fhwa.dot.gov/*]. Regarding the total amount of assessments collected under their authority, specific statewide figures are not readily available. However, individual districts have reported their revenues. For example, the Downtown Community Benefit District in San Francisco reported assessment revenues of approximately $3.9 million in 2019.”
*FHWA.DOT.gov http://fhwa.dot.gov/ did not load, but apparently FHWA is the Federal Highway Administration (who knew?), part of the Department of Transportation. I did find a page on their site, FHWA - Center for Innovative Finance Support - Fact Sheets, which defines Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) as "privately directed and publicly sanctioned organizations that supplement public services within geographically defined boundaries by generating multiyear revenue through a compulsory assessment on local property owners and/or businesses.”
That page has a bunch of other interesting information on BIDs as well (there are a variety of other similar entities, among which are Special Assessment Districts, which have the very appropriate acronym SAD). Sad indeed! But in this context, the “privately directed” language quoted above in particular could be a useful reference.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))

···
On Feb 6, 2025, at 3:17 PM, Elizabeth Brierly <elizabethb@brierly.org mailto:elizabethb@brierly.org> wrote:
Greetings, team:
Urgent question: Do you know anyone who lives, shops, works, or owns a business in Benicia? Or people in neighboring cities, who might know such people in Benicia?
Preferably a libertarian or at least a fiscal conservative.The context is an anti-tax lawsuit I’m assisting with.
Thanks, cheers, and liberty!
ElizabethLearn about the LP in the new book: Libertarianism: John Hospers, the Libertarian Party’s 50th Anniversary, and Beyond. (Use promo code “HAYEK” at JBooksInc.com https://jbooksinc.com/shop/ols/products/xn-libertarianism-john-hospers-the-libertarian-partys-50th-anniversary-and-beyond-3r55c for a free bonus!)
Share this new music video advocating that politicians swear, before passing laws, to FIRST, DO NO HARM! CarlaHowell.com https://carlahowell.com/product/first-do-no-harm/
Want to instruct & guide your elected Calif. state representatives? Click here to find them: FindYourRep.Legislature.Ca.gov https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/.Elizabeth C. Brierly P.O. Box 611021 San Jose, California 95161 (408) 272-3191 telephone (408) 930-4172 mobile ElizabethB@Brierly.org <mailto:ElizabethB@Brierly.org>This e-message and any attachments are the property of Elizabeth C. Brierly. It is intended only for the correct addressee(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message and destroy any copies. You are prohibited from copying, distributing, or disclosing this message or its contents to any other person or entity. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.